Tick, tick. August 2nd is the Debt Limit Armageddon. Or Not.

Thomas wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:

If Thomas is correct concern about the public debt and spending is a "distant second" to concern about unemployment. That hardly counts as "not giving a **** about it" as you so bombastically insist.

Perhaps you should have bothered to click the link and read the page instead of hiding behind your "if Thomas is correct" dodge. Then you would have noticed that Cycloptichorn and I are basically saying the same thing. These days, jobs and economic recovery is practically the only national priority respondents care about at all.

It was no ******* dodge at all. I merely quoted what you wrote, and trusting your veracity, had no need to check your link for something so unambiguous.

I do, however find your statement that you agree with Cyclo, that concern over the national debt & deficit is somewhere between "something no one outsdide of washington DC gives a **** about" and ""practically the only national priority respondants care about at all" rather disingenuous, given that the survey you cited, by your own report listed concern about the debt as "a distant second on the list".

It was no ******* dodge at all. I merely quoted what you wrote, and trusting your veracity, had no need to check your link for something so unambiguous.

On the contrary they are linked in the views of many people.

The results of the last Congressional election and, before that, the rise of the tea party movement which you so despise, are clear indicators of widespread public concern on these matters. Thes facts carry at least as much weight as your much loved polls.

I never suggested that concern avout the debt was the chief or only concern of the American public - only that it is indeed a significant public concern.

I am bemused by the general suggestions that in the current impasse it is only the Republicans who are unwilling to compromise. I am not aware of any meaningful committments of the Administration to binding restructuring of entitlements or significant reductions in spending.

President is demanding the restoration of the pre Bush income tax rates - something he conceded would not be done just a few months ago.

Do you honestly want this to turn into an election-year issue by dragging it out further? The Dems do

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Do you honestly want this to turn into an election-year issue by dragging it out further? The Dems do

Cycloptichorn

I suspect you read too many predigested arguments in political blogs. Better to think for yourself. Careful you don't become totally reliant on the propaganda you so prodigiously consume.

Few Americans, however, take the view that spending cuts alone should be made in a deal, with no tax increases at all. In fact, only 26 percent of the Republican voters surveyed in Gallup’s poll took that position, along with 20 percent of voters overall.

[...]

If we do take the Republicans’ no-new-taxes position literally, it isn’t surprising that the negotiations have broken down. Consider that, according to the Gallup poll, Republican voters want the deal to consist of 26 percent tax increases, and Democratic voters 46 percent — a gap of 20 percentage points. If Republicans in the House insist upon zero tax increases, there is a larger ideological gap between House Republicans and Republican voters than there is between Republican voters and Democratic ones.


[...]

If a deal were to occur, it would probably have to be revenue-neutral. There is still some possibility of this because there are some tax reductions that many Democrats in Congress would support on their own merits — for example, cuts to the payroll tax, which could have a stimulative effect, in exchange for the closing of tax loopholes elsewhere.

But the House Republicans are very unlikely to capitulate on their no-tax pledge. And Democrats have little reason to capitulate either: they are on the right side of public opinion.